(December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

3: I am currently unconvinced by proposition one.
4: I believe in proposition 1 but it is very different from your proposition 1
5: proposition 1 is interesting what evidence do you have.
6: I will never believe in proposition 1 because I find it silly
3: I don't care about proposition 1 and have no feelings either way



You are showing signs of binary thinking where there are many shades of grey.

(December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 1: That God(s) exist is true.
[...]

2: What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

(December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.

And therefore - a child, a gullible moron, a nutjob, or a liar, since that's how we categorize those, who claim to believe unevidenced propositions, based solely on magical thinking, motivated reasoning, as well as arguments from popularity and authority.

(December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

Uhm... Whatever his/her name is?...

(December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.
What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

A (strong) atheist. A weak atheist doesn't yet consider either true.

The evidence isn't there or is so weak as not to be compelling to a strong conclusion as such I remain unconvinced but at the same time suspend ultimate judgement on the matter

(December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.
What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

Proposition 1 is wrong. Believing in a god doesn't make one a theist. Theists believe in god(s) who actively interfere in the workings of the universe. Deists believe in god(s) who don't interfere. Anti-theists hate the god(s) they believe in. Some apatheists believe god(s) exist, they simply don't care.

Edit: the conclusion associated with Prop 1.

I think part of the problem is that the concept of god/gods/theism/deism/etc is so poorly pinned down (because it doesn't have any real-world anchor) as to render the terminology imprecise per se.

(December 20, 2016 at 6:41 pm)RiddledWithFear Wrote: A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.

I would say "God does not exist" is a claim. What an atheist usually inductively reasons is something like:

1. There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise because even if there was no evidence for God, a person could not conclude with anything near certainty there is no God because our knowledge is limited to examination of the natural world and we lack the capacity to examine any supernatural world. To fix it:

1` There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2` Therefore God probably does not exist.

So, "God does not exist" is a claim. "God probably does not exist" would be a conclusion.

That the God claim is unlikely to be true is a conclusion that it took me a long time to reach. Every time someone says they've got something new to support the God claim, I'm willing to consider it. But the shorthand version does sound like a claim, and if someone understandably mistakes it for one, I am happy to unpack it for them.

(December 21, 2016 at 10:51 am)SteveII Wrote: [quote='RiddledWithFear' pid='1473175' dateline='1482273675']
So, "God does not exist" is a claim. "God probably does not exist" would be a conclusion.

Wrong Steve, "god doesn't exist" is the null hypothesis, because given the current evidence we live in a universe which has no need for a god to exist. The idea of god posits an extra being which doesn't agree with what we know of the universe, therefore that is the hypotesis which needs supporting evidence.

SteveII Wrote:

RiddledWithFear Wrote:A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.

I would say "God does not exist" is a claim. What an atheist usually inductively reasons is something like:

1. There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

Speaking of unsupported claims, this is one. There is certainly nothing you could reasonably have gathered from this forum to justify you thinking that this is 'what an atheist usually inductively reasons'. The usual reasoning, as you will have encountered repeatedly here is 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God.

SteveII Wrote:However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise because even if there was no evidence for God, a person could not conclude with anything near certainty there is no God because our knowledge is limited to examination of the natural world and we lack the capacity to examine any supernatural world. To fix it:

Which is why you imagine that is our 'usual reasoning' instead of what we have repeatedly told you is our usual reasoning.

SteveII Wrote:1` There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2` Therefore God probably does not exist.

So, "God does not exist" is a claim. "God probably does not exist" would be a conclusion.

Thanks for 'fixing it' to what we say all the time anyway. What an insight! I wonder where you got THAT from? If only atheists could think so clearly! Thanks for sharing your wisdom/demonstrated that you seem unable to hear what we say.